Crussiah v. Inova Health System, No. 8:2014cv04017 - Document 46 (D. Md. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 10/3/2016. (c/m 10/3/16 rss) (rss, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Crussiah v. Inova Health System Doc. 46 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * JOSEPH CRUSSIAH, * Plaintiff, * v. Civil Action No. PX 14-4017 * Inova Health System, * Defendant. ****** MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 13, 2016, Plaintiff Joseph Crussiah (“Crussiah”) propounded on Defendant Inova Health System (“Inova”) a “Production of Documents Request and an Interrogatories Request.” The documents request essentially asks Inova to produce all documents in its possession related to its interactions with Crussiah. ECF No. 45-1 at 2–12. The interrogatories request includes not only the standard questions but thirty-three additional “interrogatories.” ECF No. 45-1 at 14–26. Inova agreed to respond to these discovery requests within thirty-three (33) days. ECF No. 42-1 at 1. Crussiah propounded another set of interrogatories on Inova on September 12, 2016, but a response to this second set of interrogatories is not due until October 17th. On August 22, 2016, Crussiah filed a Motion to Compel, arguing that Inova failed to respond to his discovery requests within the time allowed. ECF No. 42. In a September 15th Order, the Court stated that it was unable to rule on Crussiah’s Motion to Compel without a brief report from Inova regarding the status of discovery. ECF No. 44. Inova promptly responded with a status report on September 21st explaining the progress the parties have made since Crussiah initiated discovery in July 2016. ECF No. 45. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Inova’s September 21st status report confirms that Inova responded to Crussiah’s discovery requests within the time allotted. Inova sent to Crussiah via mail a response to Crussiah’s request for production of documents on August 9, 2016. See ECF No. 45-1. Inova attached this response to its September 21st status report. ECF No. 45-1 at 28–35. Inova included in its response “every non-privileged document in its possession that has anything to do with Inova’s interactions with him.” ECF No. 45 at 1. The 400-page packet was mailed to the address provided in Crussiah’s discovery request. But for reasons unknown, the production was returned to Inova with the hand-written notation on the envelope: “Unwanted [-] Person not at address [sic] 3300 Gallows Rd. Falls Church Va. 22042.” See ECF No. 45-1 at 45. This is the address of Inova Fairfax Hospital. Nonetheless, Inova has certified that it mailed its response to the appropriate address. Regarding Crussiah’s interrogatories, Inova sent its response on August 9, 2016 via U.S. mail to the address included in Crussiah’s discovery request. Inova attached its response to its September 21st status report. ECF No. 45-1 at 36–43. Accordingly, Inova has timely and appropriately responded to Crussiah’s discovery requests. The Court, therefore, denies Crussiah’s Motion to Compel. A separate order will follow. 10/3/2016 Date /S/ Paula Xinis United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
